|Home||American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections|
|Anonymous User (login or join us)|
Author: N. Christophulos, Hugh Dorsey
Keywords: Leo Frank; Leo M. Frank; Leo Max Frank; Hugh Dorsey; Mary Phagan; Tom Watson; 1913; 1914; 1915; Atlanta; Georgia; Murder; Rape; Strangulation; ADL; Anti-Defamation League; Jew; Jewish; Judaism; B'nai B'rith; KKK; Racism; Antisemitism; Anti-Semitism; Anti-Jewish; Antijewish; Brooklyn; NY; NYC; Cornell University; Anti-Semite; Steve Oney; Leonard Dinnerstein; Abraham Foxman; Jeffrey Paul Melnick; Elaine Marie Alphin
Publisher: JOHNSON-DALLIS Co., Atlanta, Georgia.
Notes: original scanned
Macro Man -
Subject: remarkable closing arguments
Only fools and scoundrels think Leo Frank is innocent.
Subject: Did Dorsey Make a Mistake?
I was going to leave a review yesterday about how smart Dorsey was and this is what condemns him even more in my mind for having willingly and enthusiastically sent a man he had to have known was innocent to jail but I'm not so sure that he was smart.
I just finished reading something he said essentially defending beastiality over sodomy... Whatever way you look at it beastiality is rape. There is no way an animal can give consent.
However I still believe that Dorsey knew Frank was innocent and Conley was guilty. He had to have known that his whole argument that Conley would have written "done" in the notes and not "did" was contradicted in Conley's own testimony. He knew there was not positive proof that the hair on the lathe was Mary's, that Harris said it may not be. Yet he tried to hit this home to the jury knowing it could be false. He also had to have known that the "make water" reference could have easily have meant the washroom not on the 2nd floor but the black one in the basement.
He didn't care to examine the many contradictions in Conley's tale, to strip them away to find the real truth. The "law" seemed only interested in pointing out to the man where the errors were so he had the opportunity to fix them to further implicate Frank. It didn't matter that often Conley's "fixing" made things more convoluted. As long as Frank was sentenced that was all that counted to Dorsey, Black and the others.
Dorsey did not care about the truth. Dorsey cared about convicting Frank and being "right" in the eyes of the population even if he knew he was wrong, which he was. He'd put too much effort in showing that Frank was guilty to let anything stop him even the truth.
Leo Frank was innocent. All the fancy well made speeches can't change that just as the lynching of Leo Frank was as much an admittance of defeat as anything else. Slaton commuted Frank's sentence. That cannot be changed by one unlawful action. Dorsey and all those who rejoiced at Leo Frank's death not only lost the case in the end but lost a piece of their humanity and soul as well.
For all the BS going around about Frank's alleged "confessions" I found something very strange in this article. Why does Dorsey quote the murder note as saying "That negro fireman down here did this" and not "That negro hire down here did this" which is what it really said? It was only after the trial that Frank's side discovered that the tall man referenced in the notes and who was meant to be incriminated was probably the fireman William Nolle, who was very different in appearance from James Conley. This was against Dorsey and Conley's claim that Frank was trying to frame Newt Lee. However, did Hugh M. Dorsey know all along who Conley was really trying to frame and did he accidentally let slip this knowledge?
Subject: powerful and long winded
a must read. the argument of hugh m. dorsey in the leo frank trial was considered one of the most remarkable closing arguments ever delivered at the time (1913). i must agree. be sure to also read the 1913 closing arguments of frank arthur hooper in american state trials V. 10 published in 1918.
Subject: Not racist at all
How comes that people still believe Leo frank is innocent? At some stage even his wife hadn't believed him anymore or how else will one try to explain why she didnt came to see her husband in court? . Read this book carefully and the only conclusion you can come to is that Leo Frank was the murderer. Even though four of his own people were sitting in the jury he was still found guilty. How much more proof do people need to understand that the Leo Frank case wasn't racist at all?
Subject: Tight and Narrow Navigation
Dorsey's arguments are superb and dynamite, even at times reaching heights of genius. Dorsey creates a tight and narrow lane making it effortless for the Jury, which has now become the 3rd Jury to decide and rule against Frank. Frank is arrested 2 days after the murder and put first before the Coroners Jury unanimously vote against Frank, followed by the Grand Jury unanimously voting 21 to 0 to indict Leo Frank, and then next the Petite Jury of 12 Men and a Judge, vote 13 to 0 against Frank. Then there would be 2 more years of frivolous poorly thought out and even cheesy appeals by Leo M. Frank from 1913 to 1915. So then there would be over a dozen judges voting against Frank.
|Rights:||Published in 1914, not in copyright.|
|Ocr:||ABBYY FineReader 8.0|